In religious dispute, Kentucky Amish men jailed for not using reflective triangles on buggies

[rug]

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, January 12, 4:16 PM

MAYFIELD, Ky. — A group of Amish men were sent to jail in western Kentucky Thursday for refusing to pay fines for breaking a state highway law that requires their horse-drawn buggies to be marked with orange reflective triangles.

The men have a religious objection to the bright orange signs, which they say are flashy and conflict with their pledge to live low-key and religious lives.

Ananias Byler, the first of 10 Amish men who appeared in Graves County District Court on Thursday, was sentenced to 10 days in jail. The men were jailed for being found in contempt of court for refusing to pay fines. Byler told Judge Deborah Crooks Thursday that he would not pay the $489 he owes.

“I totally understand your objection,” the judge told Byler. “But you’re in violation, and it’s not up to me to change the law. It doesn’t really matter what I think about any of this.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/ky-amish-men-due-in-court-for-not-putting-reflective-tags-on-buggies-in-religious-dispute/2012/01/12/gIQAMVJItP_story.html

If you continue reading, however, you will find that they do not have to wear orange jumpsuits while in jail for not using orange reflectors.

[Deep13]

1. I wouldn't call it a religious dispute.

They refused to comply with traffic laws and were punished for it.

[rug]

2. Except

"The issue over the orange triangles has come up before in other states with Amish populations. Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania have allowed exemptions for the Swartzentrubers, and courts in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan have sided with them."

Do you find it odd they have been given an exemption to weaing orange jail jumpsuits?

[cleanhippie]

3. Not odd at all. The reflectors are for public safety, jumpsuits not so much.

Not sure why anyone would, or SHOULD, get any kind of exemption from public safety laws, especially traffic safety laws. Not using the reflectors affects everyone on the road, not just them.

[rug]

8. Traffic safety is no different in Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.

[cleanhippie]

15. I agree, which is why I do not understand why anyone should get an exemption

From traffic safety laws at all, for any reason. It makes no sense.

[rug]

19. Except Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan all granted exemptions.

[tama]

37. As for safety laws

I must confess that in this world I would feel much safer having Amish as neighbors than having you as neighbor - self sufficient communities with ethics of giving and sharing and pacifism would be very nice neighbors in this turbulent world of Peak Oil etc. But also must confess that safety is not always what I'm seeking, first and foremost...

[Goblinmonger]

6. But the Amish make exceptions all the time.

I live very close to Wisconsin Amish country and visit it often. They have Igloo coolers in their homes. They use phones of the neighbors to make calls. They don't completely abandon modern technology. And, hey, it's their dogma and they can do what they want. But, personally, I think it is kind of hypocritical of them to find a way to say it is OK to use a bright red igloo cooler on their farm and then bitch about an orange safety sign which is meant to protect them and others on the road. And don't get people started on the Amish on the roads around here. Their metal wheels cause the roads to need repair quite frequently and the Amish don't pay any taxes toward that. Lots of people are pissed about it.

[rug]

9. That's an entirely different issue.

[Goblinmonger]

12. No it's not.

They don't want to use the orange because it goes against their religion. A religion that they make exceptions for when it is something they need. We need them to make this exception for their safety and ours.

Unless you mean the road taxes, then yes. I just offered that as an aside.

[Adsos Letter]

91. Just a curious aside...how do they avoid the tax issue?

Highway taxes seem like a no-brainer if they're using the roads, especially if their use necessitates more need of those monies.

[tama]

99. By not buying cars

they avoid paying "motor vehicle registration fees or motor fuel taxes, (taxes which are typically used to finance public roads)."

[tama]

30. AFAIK

There is no Amish "dogma", but each community makes their own decisions between living in the worldly world and the values of being plain. They don't believe in the one size fits all kinds of solutions.

In my book the Amish are the true fundamentalists, in the positive sense of the word.

PS: Roads made of asphalt are made of oil, and obviously they are not "plain". Dirt roads are more sustainable.

[dmallind]

13. Why should anybody be surprised at "one rule for thee and one for me" with godbotherers?

When we already have exemptions and special protections by the bucketload for them? Good that at least one jurisdiction wants to protect my safety over their superstition.

[cbayer]

14. godbotherers? That's a new one on me. So I looked it up in the Urban Dictionary.

Whatever else you may think of the Amish, they are hardly godbotherers.

[dmallind]

28. Whatever you may think of the Urban Dictionary, it's too much.

[tama]

36. Those "one rule for all" types

are the most frightening. I have nothing to fear from plain and pacifist Amish, but plenty of reasons to be afraid of US of A.

[Jim__]

4. It sounds like letting them use gray reflective tape may be a compromise solution.

Or, based on what the sheriff said, the problem is with night driving. Are they citing these people in the daytime? Maybe if they only cited them at night it would help.

[rug]

10. It is. Half a dozen other states were able to resple this without jailing them.

[edhopper]

5. It's fine if you want to live

in a biblical fantasy land. (Which them seem to think was embodied in 1805). But when they wish to come out into our country based on laws that apply to everyone, then they must comply with those laws.

[rug]

11. Ohio, New York, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan must be biblical fantasy lands.

[Goblinmonger]

16. The Amish I see in their carriages here

have the slow-moving vehicle sign on the back. Usually with a red flashing light for night driving. I saw Amish kids on a four-lane highway at 2am with red flashing lights on their back.

[Critters2]

27. I once nearly hit a buggy in Illinois Amish Country. It was foggy, and I saw a vehicle with

two tail lights. I assumed it was a car until I was close enough to see the triangle, which was harder to see than usual in the fog. I hit my brakes and moved onto the shoulder, or I would've hit it for sure.

[edhopper]

17. And they have to obey traffic laws in all those states

And of course I was talking about their "Historic Williamsburg" type enclaves where they use the Bible like some misunderstood text in a Star Trek episode. When they choose to come out into the real world, where God has allowed Mankind to use electricity, they must comply with the laws of the land.

[rug]

20. Except orange stickers.

[tama]

31. They "must" nothing

you and your government is not their boss, and their "fantasy land" is working much better than your fantasy land based on worship of Mammon and Violence. They don't really need your fantasy land as their fantasy land is self-sustainable and can survive fine and even better without your fantasy land.

Amish are stronger than your country and your laws, do you know why?

[Humanist_Activist]

34. As long as they use OUR roads hell yes they better comply with the law...

Oh, and I got to ask, how are they stronger?

[tama]

35. They

are less afraid.

[edhopper]

38. Afraid of what?

That if they don't follow their particular reading of the Bible and follow it to the letter they will bring forth God's wrath.
Not afraid of that?

[tama]

39. Less afraid than

the government and society that builds armies and uses violence for the "benefit" of those who are possessed by their possessions.

Their pacifism is product of evolution, in the early history of the Mennonites or Anabaptists there was also a violent sect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnster_Rebellion). Violent sect is not more but the pacifists remain and prosper, their numbers in US growing from just couple hundred to current 250 000 (old order).

[edhopper]

40. That's a complete nonsequitor to the discussion

What gives them the right to not abide by the laws of the public roads they drive on?

[cbayer]

41. I don't see anyone arguing that. What I see is the question of why the laws can't be changed.

[Humanist_Activist]

44. If there was a way that protects both the Amish and Non-Amish alike, then I'm all for it...

but this is public safety we are talking about, on public roads, certain rules need to be followed, and any compromises need to not sacrifice that safety.

[cbayer]

48. It has been pointed out that other states have laws which do both.

I am not interested enough to really research those laws, but I assume they both protect the general public and accommodate the customs of a segment of that population.

I agree that until those changes are made, the Amish are obligated to follow the laws in place.

[tama]

52. What gives US Congress etc.

a bunch of corrupt politicians, right to tell others what to do? E.g. to tell me not to smoke pot and murder people around the world...

[darkstar3]

53. The concept of a representative democracy.

That's pretty fundamental civics right there.

[tama]

58. Rotten system

if you ask me.

[darkstar3]

60. You would prefer what, exactly?

[tama]

62. I'm

a self confessed anarchist.

And no, I don't have all the answers.

[edhopper]

54. What country do you live in?

[tama]

57. I thought

with the reference to "rights" you were trying to discuss political and moral philosophy.

[edhopper]

84. I was asking seriously

from your replies I assumed that you don't live in the US since you don't have some basic knowledge of the laws.

[tama]

85. Never been in US

But as you brought up the issue of rights, by what right US took the land from the people who were living there already - and living in better balance with nature, I might add. Or by what right Sweden conquered the land where I live, called Finland?

[cbayer]

86. Your english is impeccable, tama. I am really impressed.

[edhopper]

102. What does the American genocide

of the native Americans have to do with traffic laws?

[tama]

103. You asked

what "gives them the right to not abide by the laws", I respond with the question, what right has a (genocidal) government to make laws?

Some posters have got very annoyed against Amish and blaming the victim and demanding even that law should not make any exemptions based on religion, I'm trying to put things in larger perspective and reminding what kind of system is making those laws in the first place.

[edhopper]

104. I am sorry

that is just simplistic and irrational. As Americans we live by the Constitution, we often acknowledge the bad this country has done, but at the same time we appreciate the laws that we live by.
If you want to discuss the right of any government to impose laws, I think that is for another forum.

[tama]

106. What I find irrational

is the belief in the Constitution. There is an anecdote about Kurt Gödel, when he applied for citizenship of US, the great logician read the constitution and told his friend Einstein that he had found an logical error there, with the division of powers I presume. Einstein told Gödel to keep his mouth shut when dealing with the immigration officials, so we don't know exactly what was the mistake that Gödel found.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. You have a very naive and fanciful view of the Amish that doesn't match reality...

its a very patriarchal society and many communities have a history of abuse of women and children.

They aren't idyllic, they have problems with diseases that we have far less to worry about, they can be very oppressive of their members, etc.

[tama]

50. I'm aware

of those problems. As I'm also aware of the problems that US government and oil addiction are causing.

[Humanist_Activist]

87. And?

What does one have to do with the other?

[tama]

89. The topic of this discussion nt

[Humanist_Activist]

97. No, rational people such as myself are trying to have a discussion...

on how to balance religious liberties with the need for public safety on public roads. You on the other hand seem to not even acknowledge that public roads exist, never mind the public itself. You've rather successfully derailed this thread from the topic at hand to unsuccessfully challenge the need for governments, public interest, or even society itself. You are an anarchist, I get it, its fanciful, unrealistic, and rather enlightening, so let me see if I can enlighten things for you as well, people exist outside your home, figure out how to live and work with them, ok?

[tama]

98. Yes

I would feel safer with people like Amish as my neighbors than "rational" people like you.

[madmom]

43. apparently they DO need our fantasy land, if they didn't this would

be a non story, they wouldn't be on our public roads. If they were truly self sustainable they would have their own roads and travel solely on them, as they are not and do not, why should there be an exception? If I hit one of their buggys from behind who is at fault?

[tama]

49. From wikipedia:

"Like other citizens, Amish pay sales and property taxes. However, Amish buggies, bicyclists, and pedestrians use public highways, but need not pay either motor vehicle registration fees or motor fuel taxes[43] (taxes which are typically used to finance public roads)."

[madmom]

56. I didn't say they didn't pay taxes. YOU said they were self sufficient, obviously they are not if

they have to use public roads.

[tama]

61. Everything is relative

Their way of live is not dependent from public roads, and most crucially, from oil. When systems dependent from oil addiction fail, Amish way of life does not.

[madmom]

68. Way to move the goal posts. It's obvious they need to use public roads, whatever other kind of

spin you want to put on it about needing oil or whatever is beside the actual point that you said they are self sufficient and they are not! They use public roads they are obligated to go by public laws. I don't believe I should have to sit at a red light when there is no traffic but if I drove off I'd get a ticket. Why can't I park in a handicap parking spot if I want without threat of a ticket? or drive over 20 mph in a school zone? These are just a few examples of traffic laws that we all must obey whether we agree with them or not, we don't have a choice.

[tama]

71. Horses and wagons

moved around America long before there were cars and roads.

I have a choice not to drive or own a car and I don't, so I don't have to obey those traffic laws you mention. Cars that make countries fight over oil and commit horrible crimes against humanity and the planet. I do occasionally walk against red lights when there are no cars coming...

[madmom]

88. We're not talking about wagons trails and walking, we're talking about buggies on public roads that

were built for cars and trucks. If you want to walk that is your prerogative but if you are on the road, even on a bicycle you must obey traffic rules, even when you walk there are certain "rules of the road" you must follow or you can get a ticket. If they don't like the rules of the road it is their prerogative to not use the roads. You keep moving the goal posts further and further so I think I'm done, you are just being purposely obtuse. Have a good night

[tama]

90. Yes and I

"must" not eat peyote or smoke pot, in fear of your evil government that is in constant war with what not. I don't follow any rules, when I do, because I "must", but only if they make sense.

[dmallind]

94. Then they can strongly get arrested for being scofflaws.

[MarkCharles]

7. Belief that orange is "flashy" is a "RELIGIOUS" belief now?

Failure to comply with traffic or other regulations results in fines and/or imprisonment.

Failure to properly understand the physics of light and vision for drivers at night is the issue here.


This kind of equation that claims any non-rational approach to the modern world can be called a "religious" belief is the main issue here. This kind of thinking would mean people would be free to bully others, to keep slaves, to beat children, or worse, due to their "religious" rights to do so.

The time in jail is what faces anyone who continually flaunts the law of the land, no matter what their religious beliefs may be.

[rrneck]

18. So how does the idea

of being a low key religious Hood ornament grab ya?

[cbayer]

21. If there is a reasonable alternative that provides for the same level of safety

while respecting the beliefs or customs of a community, I am stymied as to why they would not change the rules.

[rug]

22. Me too.

[MarkCharles]

23. Because changing the rules to favor the beliefs of one religion while...

reducing the level of safety of ALL people in the community is not part of what the Constitution authorizes.

Quite simply, when we start bending and changing the best rules to favor one people's set of religious beliefs over another, we are in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

Some people have religious beliefs that sharing of blood from one human being to another is against their faith. Should we change the rules regarding blood transfusions simply because one religion believes that?

Obviously the secular goals of the state may be in conflict with numerous religious beliefs. Changing the best state-of-the-art rules enacted legitimately for the safety and protection of ALL citizens rules in such a way as as to favor or excuse the beliefs of some smacks in the face of the intent and purpose of the very secular Constitution of the USA.


It's really that simple.

[cbayer]

24. The Jehovah's Witness example does not hold here.

Hospitals make accommodations for religious beliefs all the time. Often a sticky ethical/medical dilemma, but, in general, people's religious beliefs are respected and the rules changed.

My question was this - if there is a reasonable accommodation that can be made that maintains the same level of safety, why not make it? Other states have. It doesn't favor anyone's beliefs, it simply accommodates them.

Some who participate here say that believers have a mental disorder. So maybe the ADA applies.

[Humanist_Activist]

46. Actually that's only true in the case of adults who are conscious...

all patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, one of the hallmarks of medical ethics. However, other people do not, unless under specific circumstances, have the right to do so in the case of others who can't consent. Jehovah's Witnesses can't tell doctors to not give their children life saving blood because its against their religion, the doctors are ethically obligate to violate the parent's wishes in this case.

Obviously, in the case of emergency situations where the patient can't communicate, doctors do all they can to save/stabilize them and deal with any consequences later.

And this is the issue, this refusal to comply with a traffic law endangers others, not just themselves, that's why, if a reasonable accommodation can't be met, then they should be forced to comply with the law, or if they can't, not use public roads.

[kwassa]

25. Can you quote the part of the Constitution violated?

I don't see the link between this and any Constitutional issues.

[MarkCharles]

26. Try the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law...

Congress, and the authority of states which descend from the Constitution, "shall make no laws"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

"..... law respecting an establishment of religion"

The authority of the state, granted by the Constitution and subsequent Congresses, must comply with lawmaking and thus can make "NO LAW. respecting an establishment of religion"

We don't make law in America to give a bonus benefit to one religious belief over another.

If those who feel that they CANNOT comply with the laws of PA, and CAN comply with the laws of other states, due solely to religious reasons, then they have the freedom in the USA to move to where they can comply with the law, due to religious reasons. It is not the obligation of the state (Congress shall make no law) to comply with the religious beliefs of some.

Simple, really, if one understands the Constitution.

[tama]

32. Safety?

If you want to speak about safety, start from getting rid of cars and oil addiction. It's so fucking easy to lose your sense of proportion when you are blinded by religion, or hatred towards, or blind authoritarianism of government worship.

[MarkCharles]

42. Equal treatment under the law is NOT "blind authoritarianism"

Granting exemptions to following the law based upon religious beliefs is just plain unconstitutional.

Try again.

[tama]

47. I've been

in a peyote ceremony of the Native American Church. I hold in contempt belief systems and authoritarianism that would persecute participants including me myself, in the name of "equal treatment under the law".

[rug]

63. I was too at Pine Ridge, South Dakota.

It was part of a funeral service for a Sioux who was killed by the government during the occupation of Wounded Knee. Peyote soup was used.

[tama]

65. This was

in a local Finnish Ecovillage with a Wheel Man from Arizona.

The tears started coming, I had recently divorced after 20 years of marriage, and cried for days after the ceremony. A friend of mine did this song about his experience in the same ceremony:

[rug]

66. It's a unique ceremony.

[tama]

67. In case you missed

I added a link to a song in the previous post. Hope you enjoy it.

[rug]

70. Wow, good song, good words.

When he gave us the medicine, we took it in
It was sweetly familiar, like a memory of a life I lived.
It found there within me, all my fear and doubt.
I moved to the outside and turned inside out.

I never heard of this guy. Thanks for the heads up.

[tama]

74. English bloke

married a Finnish woman.

Last line you quoted refers to letting go of the fear and doubt in the material form of vomit... transubstantiation of sorts.

[rug]

78. And I thought he was being metaphysical.

Good stuff.

[tama]

82. In some sense of the word

he was.

Metaphysical bodily excrements are considered very important in the healing processes with certain medicines (cannabis, peyote, ayahuasca, etc., and also special vomitivos like kambo etc.).

[dmallind]

95. Except, apparently, atheists

Gosh you're such a tough rugged individualist.

[tama]

101. I'm a cry baby

and like to live in communities, a social being. I just don't replace my conscience (together-knowing) with states and their laws. And I know many other atheists who are anarchists and have used substances banned by government. They are being beaten and jailed and persecuted by the secular state and its laws and cops, not by theists.

[dmallind]

29. Is there a reasonable alternative to religious privilege

....that respects the customs and beliefs of the atheist community, significantly larger as it is than the Amish?

Why doesn't it stymie you that one has never been sought?

[tama]

33. There is no atheist community

to begin with.

But why don't you start one? A self sustainable community of atheist farmers that does not need a government to feed them...

[MarkCharles]

55. Can I quote you on that when believers accuse atheists of

a coordinated effort to go after religious believers?

[tama]

59. I'm not a supporter

of copyright restrictions.

[dmallind]

93. You mean other than AAI, the Humanists, etc?

[tama]

100. There are

many kinds of communities, and the word can have several meanings.

[rug]

64. What are the beliefs of the atheist community?

[darkstar3]

69. So now a community must have beliefs in order to exist?

Or maybe you missed dmallind's point.

[rug]

72. You'd have to ask him what he meant.

"29. Is there a reasonable alternative to religious privilege that respects the customs and beliefs of the atheist community"

As to his point, inapposite as it is, I got it.

[darkstar3]

73. If you got it, then what point did your quesion have?

Just practicing your spoon work again?

[rug]

75. He said beliefs of the atheist community. I askeed what beliefs.

You call that spoon work?



No wonder you worry about bullies. Every question is sinister.

[darkstar3]

76. As I suspected...

[rug]

77. Your comments are nothing but suspicion

full of sound and fury
signifying nothing.

[darkstar3]

79. Now ask me if I care. :)

To be clear, I meant about your opinion of my posts.

[rug]

80. If you did you wouldn't post crap.

[darkstar3]

81. I guess that makes me "kettle"?

[tama]

83. That is an interesting question

I've visited many communities that aim for sustainable ways of life, and I have lived in couple. These "hippie villages" have a lots of "spiritual peoples" and practices, but no shared religion as such. There are also similar religious communities, and in this part of the world the most succesfull ecovillage is a theosophist community, whose members refuse social aid, that helps a lot a near by hippie community, whose members pick up unemployment benefits etc. government aid.

In that sense, a shared religion seems on empirical grounds a strength for a community.

[dmallind]

92. lack of them in gods. Duh!

[rug]

105. And what are the customs of the atheist community?

[dmallind]

107. Dealing with things rationally. No wonder you have to ask.

[rug]

108. And courteous at all times.

Thanks for the kick.

[darkstar3]

51. If this were just about their safety, then I think they should be allowed an exemption.

Frankly, I don't think that exemption would fall in line with the other type of safety laws that we have in effect, but I still think it would be OK...if it were just for their safety.

It's not.

I grew up near a rather large Amish settlement. They drove their buggies on the same roads the rest of use, just like this situation. I know what happens when a car rear ends a horse-drawn buggy, and after that accident the Amish started putting detachable reflective orange triangles on the back of their buggies before getting on the road.

It's not right to subject your six-year-old daughter to a horrible death by the crushing of her ribcage just because your religion objects to a color. It's not right to subject another couple to death-by-horse-through-windshield just because your religion objects to a color. The Amish people around my old stomping grounds had to learn that the hard way, and I hope no one else does.

[dmallind]

96. No! Toddlers being crushed to death is a small price for avoiding "flashiness"

How dare you think their "deeply held beliefs" are less important than innocent lives you horrid bigot!